Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5746680" data-attributes="member: 42582">What are you talking about? I'm talking about <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/4/" target="_blank">actor stance</a>:In Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have. Playing in actor stance isn't impeded by the player knowing that the mechanics guarantee that a PC's attempted action will succeed.Besides the examples I've already given, another one could be given drawing on the jump rules from 3E. In 3E there are no fumble rules for skills, so a character with a +X bonus to jump is guaranteed to be able to clear Y feet with a running broad jump. (I don't know the rules off-hand for correlating X and Y.) So suppose my PC has to decide whether or not to jump over a terribly deep chasm that is only Y feet wide. I (as my PC) am confident that I have a pretty good chance of clearing the chasm - in practice, I never jump fewer than Y feet. So I decide to try the jump! Is it an impedence of adopting actor stance that in the real world even the best jumper might have a chance (however small) of misstepping at the threshold and falling down the chasm, whereas the action resolution mechanics guarantee that I (as my PC) will succeed? I don't think so.As long as the player doesn't rely upon his/her knowlege of the mechanical determinism in deciding what his/her PC does, there need be no departure from actor stance.</blockquote>

Verification